Resurrection, Baptism and Theodicy

We might be forgiven for thinking that today is Easter. Each of the three readings for today mentions resurrection in some form or another. Ezekiel speaks of opening the graves, Paul speaks of the Spirit that raised Christ from the dead, and John narrates the raising of Lazarus. But upon closer inspection it becomes clear this is a different resurrection than the one in which we have hope.

This resurrection is the one for which ...
This resurrection is the one for which Judas Maccabeus prayed (2 Macc 12:42-46), and the one Martha mentions to Christ. It is the belief that those who died "in godliness," as 2 Macc puts it, would be brought back to this life. This is what Christ accomplishes in Lazarus; he is restored to this life. But it is not the same as the one Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 15:52ff. The Resurrection in which we have our hope is the raising of all who have fallen to face judgement. Those who died in the friendship of Christ will be "changed" clothed with light and given glorious bodies. But the important difference, other than the change, or indeed that is part and parcel of that change is the "immortality" that Paul speaks of. We aren't raised like Lazarus to go on living in this fallen world. But because of the Cross of Christ, we can be raised and live eternally with Christ in His heavenly Kingdom.

But since this resurrection is only one that brings people back to the life they lived it still leave us hungering for more. It is, as yet, incomplete. It is why these readings point us to Easter, which is now getting so close as to be palpable. These readings are a journey to Easter. This is why the Ezekiel reading is not just about resurrection, but the return of Israel into the land. We too are waiting to be restored, in a sense, by the Passion, Death and Resurrection. And this should give us tremendous hope. Because these readings tell is that we too are journeying to our own Resurrection. Christ did not rise from the dead selfishly. We too will also enjoy the bodily resurrection, and as I said, that is a cause of great hope.

----

There is another sense to these readings that bears being mentioned. My Missal rightly points out that these readings are also catechetical. They teach us about baptism. It is why these pericopes are selected for the Scrutinies. Lent is generally a time to focus upon our Baptismal vows, but when we are welcoming new people into the Church, these pericopes become especially poignant. The story of Lazarus in particular is dramatic demonstration that "we were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life." (Rom 6:4). Lazarus dramatically demonstrates this in his life, death and return to life. His example serves a didactic purpose for us. That also means that the reading from Ezekiel has more than just an immediate meaning. In an immediate sense it is a prophecy directed to the Exiles. But in a wider sense it is a promise to us about our baptism. The "how" of this promise is then articulated in the Pauline pericope. It is by the power of the Holy Ghost that we are called and then incorporated into the Body of Christ by baptism. Thus it is with joy and great anticipation that we yearn to eat at the same table with the catechumens, which we will do on the Vigil of the Lord's Resurrection.

----

I want to change tacks for a second, and reflect on the fact that from a certain point of view Christ can seem pretty monstrous in the Lazarus story. He knows ahead of time that His supposed friend will die. And yet, He lifts no finger to stave it off. As Martha asks, and skeptics like Dawkins and Hitchens ask, "how can a loving God let this happen? If He's so powerful and so good, why doesn't He just stop it?" The whole pericope is the response to this theodicy question as much as last week's pericope was.

Why did the man need to be born blind? Why did Christ need to let Lazarus die? It would be tempting to simply say so that Jesus could demonstrate powers and serve didactic purposes. But that's not really the case. Take the man born blind, if it was really simply to serve a didactic purpose or let Christ manifest some of His power then then story would have ended when the man was cured, and the lesson demonstrated. But the story goes on. It is the same reason the Lazarus pericope actually takes place before the washing of the feet pericope it mentions in the first few verses.

God permitted these things to happen because of two reasons, those things which He moved eternal to free ends have to remain free. And ... He nevertheless moves all things, free or otherwise, to Himself and to greater things. He takes all suffering and makes of it/them greater things beside. All the sin that Man visits upon his fellow in sometimes quite horrific fashion, Christ took upon Himself so that what could come after His Death and Resurrection was greater than anything that had gone before or since. If you took a hundred billion sufferings and poured them all into a container and compared it to the container that contained the fruits of the Passion, Death and Resurrection, you could not even see the container of the sufferings when held against the other, because the other is so much vaster than the sufferings.

Christ did what He did in both the case of the Man Born Blind and Lazarus to give greater glory to God and to use suffering to a greater purpose. If you could assign a numerical value to the suffering of the man born blind and the suffering caused by the death of Lazarus, what Christ did was greater by far and always is.

But the skeptics would still object, I am sure, that this still seems a cruel way for a loving God to behave. To which one points out that they are assessing "loving" based on their own human, finite experience. An infinite God with access to all possible worlds knows whether His staying His hand or His intervention is the "best" possible choice at any time. What we might perceive as a relief from suffering, might in the end be a greater cruelty still, because we cannot appreciate all the possible eventualities from that relief. But at the same time, it would be wrong to think of God as being only concerned with macro problems. Instead, He still takes notice of all His children individually, personally. How God deals with each person's sufferings is indeed a personal choice which must be viewed in the context of that individual relationship between Creator and Created.

For me, anyway, I draw great comfort from this.

A Question of Nature(s)

A friend asked me on another site:

Which reminds me, Oggerz -

I guess that's the hardest thing for me to grasp about the Trinity. There's a few sequences that seem to indicate a disconnect between the substance - will or knowledge of the Father and Son. Sometimes, upon further examination, there's a perfectly sensible reason ("Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani" being a reference to Psalm 22), but I haven't found one for the cup of suffering sequence ("nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt"), or the difference in knowledge between the Father and Son of the date or the end times, or "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God" from the story of the rich man.

I promised him a fuller answer ...
I promised him a fuller answer than the one I gave him, which for reference's sake is:

I think you must remember that Christ had two Natures that were neither co-mingled nor subordinated to the other. And yet, in the words of the Athanasian Creed "Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood." Once you appreciate that, and you begin to reflect on the rôle He was playing in Salvation History when He said those lines, I think it becomes clearer.

But perhaps that wasn't as clear as it could be, and so I will try to do a better job of explaining it. I also hope that some of my theological friends will help me out if I still seem to be lacking in the perspicacious department.

----

One of the first things to remember is that there were numerous purposes to writing Scripture and numerous layers and levels in which to read it. My chief beef with Christians who believe that Scripture is perspicacious is that claiming it is so robs Scripture of much. If you read a Scriptural passage and come away thinking you understand it very well, you have missed something. Now, granted, some passages are clearer than others, and some are more opaque. Otherwise, why would Peter have observed "in [the writings of St Paul] there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures"? (2 Pet 3:16) So this is the first lesson to keep in mind: Scripture is meant to be challenging and to challenge, but it isn't really supposed to be "clear."

So, I think I want to take some of these scenes independently before wrapping it up.

Let's take the introduction from Rich Man scene:

Matt 10
17 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"18 Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

If we read it carefully, we realise Jesus isn't denying He's God. Rather he senses that the rich man is calling Him good for other reasons. Rather than list all the possible ways, it should be clear rather from context that the man is trying to worship someone he fully believes to be a human like him. His kneeling down is a kind of attempt to flatter and honour someone in the way one ought to do so for God. Christ's rebuke of the man is therefore, pretty easy to grasp. We perceive it, removed from it as we are, as ironic. But I think the lesson for the man when it happened was more immediate: there's no need to flatter me, give due honour to God. Or you are right but for the wrong reasons. Was Christ being Kantian here, judging the man's intentions?

So that episode seems the least challenging to me on this subject. But what of the episode with the cup being taken away?

Mark 14
36 He said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible to you. Take this cup away from me, but not what I will but what you will."

The NAB has a note calling us to take heed of the complete surrender of Christ's Human will to the Divine Will of the Father. I think that's the answer to my friend's difficulty. Note that even as the thought ends, the two wills willing become one will willed. But there's more to this scene, too, and it's why I picked the Marcan version. Earlier in this Gospel, (10:38) Jesus makes reference to this cup. It will be a cup of baptism - his suffering on the cross will be His baptism, that washes away the stains of everyone else's guilt. But this cup, as understood from the OT, is one of punishment. Christ is also mentioning here His innocence. He is asking to be taken note of as the innocent lamb, who does not deserve death, but will do so "as the Father wills."

Similarly, I think there is much more going on in the "has not been revealed to the Son" episode:

Matthew 24
36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

It is worth noting that many textual witnesses are divided as to whether "the Son" should be in this text. Mk 13:32 omits it. But let us suppose this quote is authentic, because I am certainly comfortable with that. Again, aside from the Human will versus the Divine will, I think something else is also going on here. Mark and Matthew present Christ differently for a reason. In Matthew Christ is the new Moses, the new Lawgiver. It is important in Matthew that none of the New Dispensation be "Man-made" so to speak. So, even the "hour" must be ascribed totally to the Divine will for Matthew. In Mark, the context is different, being more immediate and visceral. In Mark, Christ wants his disciples to be mindful (as does Matthew, to be sure), but Mark lacks Matthew's need to present Christ as a lawgiver. In Mark, Christ is the Messiah plain and simple. So to Mark, the Son's ignorance or lack thereof it not the point whatsoever, rather that the disciples must be mindful takes centre stage.

----

I hope that answers the question in greater depth than did my quick response to my friend. It is true that Scripture lacks the conciliar articulations of Christology. All of John wrestles with this right up until the end. It is in John we get "The Father and I are one," "Before Abraham was I AM" and the like. The other Evangelists have much different perspectives and much different "points" they're trying to make. If they intended to present discourses about Trinitarian beliefs, they likely would have all four of them written the Gospel of John. But they didn't, because they each had four very different things to say about Christ.

A Little Thomistic Humour

I really did find this quite funny. Enjoy.

The 5 Ways of Proving Santa Claus

Translation Note

I touched on this in my last post, but one of the interesting things that I usually note in any translation is how κεχαριτωμένη is often translated. It is hard to completely convey the sense of this word. It means to have grace entirely bestowed on someone. I think Jerome got it absolutely correct when he translated it gratia plena, full of grace. The sense that Mary is highly favoured is not incorrect. Clearly if someone is fully of grace, by definition they are highly favoured. But highly favoured does also somewhat miss the mark, because it misses the Spiritual aspect that is underpinning the scene.

Now this is important ...
Now this is important to me for a number of reasons. First, it helps me judge the quality of the translation in general, but letting me know what choices the translators have made. Second, it also lets me know if the translators are aware of and have taken note of the Spiritual Complexities in the text. And by this I mean that the text is not a novel or a news report. It also plays a significant didactic role. In this instance, even if you don't accept the Immaculate Conception, there is still an important point about grace itself the text is making. As I demonstrated before, there is a whole movement, like an orchestral piece that involves God, His gratuitous gift, Christ's Incarnation, Mary's free acceptance and so on. The κεχαριτωμένη is a vital link in that chain.

Now, whereas there are legitimate arguments on the side of "highly favoured," I do find the GNT's decision to translate it as "peace be with you" to be indefensible. Normally, I have very few beefs with the GNT. I have, in truth, a certain fondness for it, as it was the first "Catholic" Bible I encountered before and after conversion. So it does have a special place in my heart. Ordinarily, the translators of the GNT made choices to simplify the language without resorting to paraphrasing, so as they themselves explained, to make it easier for younger people and those who do not speak English as a first language to understand the text. And yes, I agree, the Bible in any language can be intimidating, much more so if you do not possess fluent command of the language in which it is written. But to me there is no defence at all for "peace be with you," because I do not see how "highly favoured" is not simple English, whereas "peace be with you" is completely wrong.

Unfortunately, that is the price we pay in any translation: none are perfect. Some are clearly better than others, but all fall short in one way or another.

-----

Now there is another level of importance to translation. It is important for us to be able to have a translation for personal reflection that ties us to the liturgy. And so this reminds me of an observation (in 2001) by Father Richard John Neuhaus:

At present, three translations are approved for Catholic liturgical use: the New Jerusalem, the RSV, and the New American Bible (NAB). The lectionaries and the several publishers of Mass guides, however, use only the NAB. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, a wretched translation. It succeeds in being, at the same time, loose, stilted, breezy, vulgar, opaque, and relentlessly averse to literary grace. The bishops had the NAB updated to the Revised New American Bible (RNAB), but Rome had objections to that and hurriedly appointed a committee to fix it up into what might be called the Amended Revised New American Bible (ARNAB), which will soon become mandatory in lectionary use. Technically, the RSV and New Jerusalem are still permitted but, with ARNAB as the mandatory translation of the future, nobody has any interest in printing lectionaries or Mass guides using those versions. There is the additional oddity that you cannot buy an ARNAB Bible, since only the pericopes (liturgical readings) exist in ARNAB-talk. So Catholics do not have a Bible for personal or group reading that uses the same text that they hear at Mass.

The matter of translation is therefore not trivial. Since we lack a good translation that corresponds to the liturgy, we are robbed of that experience. It would be nice to go home from Mass and read the wider context in the same language as the pericopes.

RJN favoured the RSV-CE, and it is a good one, although it too suffers defects. It, after all, is one of many that does not translate almah as parthenos. Ignatius Press may one day get their wish of being able to use their update of the RSV in liturgy (in the US), but either way we should pray that some good solution presents itself ere long.

Laetare, Light and the Annunciation

On another place, to which I might or might now link due to some unpleasantness, I described what Laetare and Gaudete Sundays were and why the rose coloured vestments were so appropriate. After delving into that briefly, I began to think more about it, and then to come to some interesting conclusions about "light." This in turn lead me to think about today in the calendar.


After that little introduction ...
After that little introduction I should first lay out the explication I gave on that other site:

Each of these Sundays is a hopeful reminder of the goal we're moving towards. They are to their Liturgical Seasons what the Transfiguration was to the Apostles, a foretaste of the Resurrection. So too the Rose vestments remind us "Hang in there, the great and wonderful thing we're moving towards is almost here! Rejoice! Be glad! Exult!" Because, these Seasons, without a Laetare or Gaudete can very much become the opposite of what we want to achieve. They can be overwhelming with our self-reflection, when we should be overjoyed at the great gift that was (in the case of Lent) Christ's sacrifice for our sins.

Now, the important thing to note about these two Sundays, and we'll just focus on Laetare going forward, is that they are like the Transfiguration in a sense. The Transfiguration gave the Apostles a foretaste of the Risen Lord by way of His Glorified Body. How particularly appropriate for Lent then is Laetare Sunday since it is precisely the Resurrection we're moving towards celebrating.

It is no surprise that of the three cycles' readings, the two that come from John make much of this concept of "light." In cycle A, which is also used whenever we welcome new brothers and sisters into the church, Christ declares in the story of the Man Born Blind that He is the Light of the World. In cycle B, Christ tells Nicodemus much the same thing. Indeed the word "φῶς" appears in the Gospel of John numerous time from beginning to end. The Gospel of John is suffused, in fact, with the light of Christ. That is why it is so apropos that we use John on Sundays like Laetare and extensively throughout the Easter Season. What I said in my previous Laetare post should come to mind: the Gospel of John is predominantly concerned with Christ's Divinity. Which is why it is so suffused with the Light of Christ.

----

Now, it was a convoluted line of thinking on my part, but I did begin to think a lot about the Light that came into Mary's life at the Annunciation. I think about this, because today we hear the reading as the Greek correctly states it. In order words, the greeting of the angel is "full of grace." Now, "highly favoured" and so on are not incorrect per se. The Greek means to have grace fully poured out into someone, but grace can also mean favour. I have always taken the position, much to my chagrin, that the translators want you to hear the word play with "you have found favour with God." But for today, the reading from the Gospel serves the purpose that I believe the text is actually saying. Mary was completely and irrevocably filled with grace.

Mother Theresa noted that Mary was full of grace just by carrying Christ in her womb. Christ's Incarnation after all is a grace. But it is more than this. When Gabriel came to her, she was already full of grace and the perfective was used to describe her. Her conception was a future tense at the precise moment of the Annunciation. The promise by the angel was already efficient, it was going to happen. And yet there is a sense that her "may it be done to me according to thy word" was not unnecessary.

Now, I see in this story numerous things. I see the grace of Christ's Incarnation. IN this whole tableau between angel and Virgin, Christ is ever at the centre. The whole narrative happened to give Him the glory. God's will, His desire to pick this poor Nazarene Virgin out of any others was irrefutable. Yet her free will was never diminished. God remained sovereign, but Mary remained free. As a Thomist, and especially as a Bañezian Thomist, I find a perfect example of how God can predestine things without overriding free will. In the beginning, He moved all determined things to their determined ends, and all free things to their free ends. This seems to me a perfect example of that very fact. God's will could not be undone here, and yet Mary clearly had a choice she freely made.

Now, a good Thomist (as I aspire to be) points out that the being full of grace made her completely free to make the right choice, that is, whatever is the will of God. Why? Because it healed her will. And in a way that was akin to, no indeed was the state of Original Justice (hence her conception most immaculate). The way St Thomas described this in the Summa was to say that God moves all things to Himself according to their natures and it is human nature to have free will; ergo, the freedom of Man's will is paradoxically used to move Man to predestined ends. It seems to me logically necessary, although I know others disagree, that Mary had to be completely healed so that her free-will could be in complete accord with God's in this matter. That might not get everyone all the way to the Immaculate Conception, but it goes a ways (and yes, I understand full well some of the immediate objections. Interestingly, St Thomas dealt with those too, but in different contexts).

And this brings me back to "light," the Light of God's grace, which heals, frees us and turns us to God. It is appropriate on these two days, Laetare and the Annunciation to give great joy for the bounty of God's grace, not least of which was His own Free Gift of Himself to us and for us.

Annunciation Teaser

I'll do something on the Annunciation later. But before that some conversations I have been having about Laetare need to crystalise into a blog post. Specifically, I'll talk about the connection between the lighter liturgical colour and the idea of "light" in the Johanine Gospel.

The man born blind

Today's Gospel reading was the man born blind (Jn 9:1-41), which for us is a rather long pericope. The usual practice is to butcher it down to something shorter. What it gains in brevity it lacks in perspicacity. As a result, I was overjoyed when Father read the entire pericope from start to finish, all forty one verses. His homily was also masterly. I agree with everything in it, but I did want to explore something he didn't mention.but I did want to explore something he didn't mention.

One of the things that strikes me most about the Johanine Gospel is that more than the Synoptics it is concerned with Christ's Divinity (but not at the expense of his Humanity). But what is also equally interesting is the way in which John explores this. Had he used explicit formulary means, we might not have needed the great Oecumenical Councils, but then much would be lost in the poetry of the text. Its simplicity is one of the main sources of its beauty.

But its ability to convey this message is not lessened by being more implicit. Indeed, more than the other Gospels, John isn't just Christological in some academic sense, it is Christological experientially. To put it another way, John doesn't so much as tell as he shows. The whole structure of the Gospel is meant to show us Christ and teach us about Him.

If we consider the greater structure of the Gospel, this will help serve as illustration. The Gospel, as we all know, famously begins with a hymn that lays out Christ's eternal Divinity, coequal with the Father. The hymn makes clear what Christ later states "the Father and I are one." Then the Gospel goes on to show this to us. Each episode teaches us one or more important aspects of Christ, building a puzzle piece by piece to illustrate carefully the point that Christ was fully Divine while being fully Man.

The baptism shows His relationship to the Trinity and also serves as a Prophetic and Royal anointing. The Wedding at Cana demonstrates His power over the created world. Nicodemus illustrates that Christ is a gratuitous grace of Love. The Samaritan Woman illustrates He is the Water of Eternal Life. The Sixth Chapter, which my friend Charlie masterly covered in his sermon for today, shows that Christ is the Bread of Life. (I am aware I am skipping some stories, but that is not because they do not illustrate the point, but because I don't want this to just become a laundry list of Johanine pericopes. Also it is meant to tie into the Liturgical readings of the Lenten season.) And this pericope that we read today signifies that Christ is the Light of the World.

And there's an interesting and almost paradoxical quality to this light. This light, which should illuminate everything, is also by so doing a source of dissension. Almost like (but not like) Plato's Cave, the officials in the story cannot appreciate the light, because they have too long spent their lives in darkness. This is ironically touched upon when they rebuke the man born blind for daring to teach them when he was born mired in sin. From our perspective we know in fact that they too were mired in sin from birth (as were we all).

Just as Lent points us to the Cross and through it to the Resurrection, so too these pericopes. It is why John is such an appropriate Gospel for Lent. Each pericope of the Gospel points to Christ's Divinity, but for a purpose. It isn't just meant to answer some proto-Docetists. It is meant instead to say "Ok, so He's God, why is that important?" It is what Paul tells us in his Doctoral Dissertation, his Epistle to the Romans. What John shows us is that Christ's Divinity was essential for the Cross to have any saving power. That's why I believe so much of the Gospel is actually taken up with Resurrection pericopes, such as the Doubting Thomas or Christ's Three-fold admonition to Peter. These pericopes that lead to the Cross and stem from the Resurrection have Salvation as their focal point.

Which is, after all, what we're supposed to be reflecting on this Lenten Season.

Anastasis

Remember me? Well, I was inspired to write this quick Scriptural observation after an online conversation with an acquaintance. We were discussing Chiliasm and my friend pointed out that it mentions "This is the first resurrection" (αυτη η αναστασις η πρωτη) (Apoc 20:5)

I was kinda struck by ...
I was kinda struck by anastasis (αναστασις) which we translate as resurrection, because it suddenly struck me that I have seen it before in a totally different context. I checked a Greek Concordance, and sure enough ...

και ευλογησεν αυτους συμεων και ειπεν προς μαριαμ την μητερα αυτου ιδου ουτος κειται εις πτωσιν και αναστασιν πολλων εν τω ισραηλ και εις σημειον αντιλεγομενον (Luke 2:34)

and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted (Ibid. NAB Trans)

There it is in inflected form. That's Simeon's Prophecy. The anastasin of the quote is in the phrase "a fall and rising" of many.

Standard commentaries always speak of tumults because of the Word or the Way. I agree with those, to an extent. But I began to think of this in a new way after my discussion today. I am struck by the order of falling and rising. When I harken back to Romans 6:1-11, I become convinced that this is on purpose. Man has fallen to sin, but because of the Cross (the sign of contradiction that Simeon refers to at the end of the passage) Man may rise again with Christ in new life.

Something to think about.

UPDATE - A friend of mine has proposed an alternate definition for the First Resurrection: Faith. He offers Eph 2:1-10 for reference.

Still Alive

In the event anyone was wondering, I am still alive, but work and other ventures have kept me too busy to update this with the kind of frequency I would have liked. I promise to resume soon.

Divine Grammar

Now that I have been "noticed" I feel a certain liberating permission to blog on. I feel almost like my Lutheran days, blogging boldly! All right, Ogden, let's not let this get to our head, shall we?

In my "managed posts" section I have had a saved draft for ages called "Divine Grammar." This was something that occurred to me during the readings of the Twenty-First Sunday in Ordinary Time. Specifically, a much feared reading from Ephesians.

Well, I don't fear it, and instead ...
Well, I don't fear it, and instead I am going to proclaim what I think has been centrally missed during all the fretting. The Disputations Inspiration is prodding me to finish and post this, late though it is.

Now, by this point you're wondering what I am talking about, don't you? I am talking about the "wives be subordinate to your husbands" verses, Ephesians 5:21-32

The main charge against this passage, and what tends to embarrass our High, Enlightened sensibilities (the same sensibilities that have given a green light to abortion and the "contraceptive mentality", mind you) is that it appears to be unequal at best, misogynistic at worst.

My argument? It is neither. My argument is that since these Grand Statements have two different subjects, in the Divine Grammar, the "verbs" must be different, so that there is just agreement between the verb and the subject, just as in Human Grammar. The different subjects may have different verbs, but the action being asked of them is the same. They are both asked to imitate Christ.

Consider ... Since the Apostle began with the wife, I will begin with her. She is being asked to imitate Christ's fathomless Love, by emptying herself before her husband, as Christ did. Why? So that she can save her husband, as Christ saved Humanity. Consider Philippians:

Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.

Total self-denial for the salvation of others. It is what Christ did for us, and it is what wives are called to do for their husbands.

But the husband too is asked to do the same thing. He is asked to love the wife as Christ loves the Church. And how did Christ love the Church? By suffering even death on a cross for the salvation of her members. How can the husband do so? By patient sacrifice out of love, working for her salvation.

Both, therefore, are being asked to do the same thing: save each others souls. But women and men are different, masculine and feminine in the Divine Grammar. Thus, in order to make the Divine Sentences "work" the subjects and verbs must agree, although the end is precisely the same. Husbands and wives must sacrifice in self-denial for the salvation of their spouses.

So this is why the "short form" make me cringe. We have become squeamish about the "wives be subordinate" part. We ought to rather proclaim it proudly, sloughing off this cowardice. There is something to fear in this? How can there be? When seen properly, it can only be celebrated.

This also reminds me to do a piece that has been running around in my head about "close readings" and why they are so desperately needed in regards to the Holy Scripture.

I will let the Apostle have the last word, "Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord."

Trying to Out-Do Disputations

One of the blogs I enjoy reading is Disputations, where the blogger-author gives (among other things) his reflections and thoughts on Scripture as they appear in the Mass readings (or what have you).

His views and ideas are always provocative. I find I learn a very great deal simply reading them, although I do not necessarily always agree. Usually it's little words or grammatical points that attract his attention, and almost always from the NAB translation.


To that end, one thing struck me ...
To that end, one thing struck me in the reading from James today. James 5:4 in the NAB reads as follows:

Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.

(Emphasis mine)

You see what's being modified here, don't you? The wages themselves are crying aloud. The RSV agrees with this:

Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.

As does the New Vulgate (all emphases in the following quotes will be mine):

Ecce merces operariorum, qui messuerunt regiones vestras, quae fraudata est a vobis, clamat, et clamores eorum, qui messuerunt, in aures Domini Sabaoth introierunt.

And the old:

ecce merces operariorum qui messuerunt regiones vestras qui fraudatus est a vobis clamat et clamor ipsorum in aures Domini Sabaoth introiit

(I could do a whole blog post just on the differences between the old and the new in just this verse, but I won't ... not tonight. You'll notice the RSV more closely follows the Latin. If I need to convince people that this is in the Greek, too, I can quote that as well:

ἰδοὺ ὁ μισθὸς τῶν ἐργατῶν τῶν ἀμησάντων τὰς χώρας ὑμῶν ὁ ἀφυστερημένος ἀφ' ὑμῶν κράζει, καὶ αἱ βοαὶ τῶν θερισάντων εἰς τὰ ὦτα Κυρίου Σαβαὼθ εἰσελήλυθαν:

Now that is out of the way ... What does it mean? The wages themselves are crying out ... This reminds of the sins that cry out to Heaven. I couldn't remember the last one of the top of my head. For shame, Ogden! So, I looked it up in the Catechism, and lo and behold ...

1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.

(Emphasis mine)

And there's even a footnote, "Cf. Deut 24:14-15; Jas 5:4.." (The emphasis is mine.)

So, this passage, and the Church, appear to be telling us that the sin itself had a kind of triggered response. If you engage in practice X the sin itself will "cry out" to God in a voice only He can hear.

But is it being figurative? Is it being literal? I suppose in a very real sense, it's both. The Living God in His Foresight, has known these sins would take place (and when, and how often, and by whom, etc) throughout all Eternity. Consequently, He has also known they would Offend his Infinite Justice. And in that sense, that knowledge in the mind of the Sublime is the actual "crying out." Because these deeds so offend against His Will that they are like the proverbial fingernails on chalkboard. Although He never fails to take note of anything, these things He takes note of in a very special way.

Just as this strange construction took me by surprise, I believe the Apostle intends the same thing for the "wealthy" whom he is castigating. Just as the implications awe and terrify me, I believe the Apostle intends the same reaction on the part of those whom he warns.

In any case, I welcome any thoughts on this anyone might have, and I hope to have done some justice to the methodology of the aforementioned blog.

UPDATE: As you can see from the links section below, the "aforementioned blog" has taken note of my little post. I am pleased as punch, but more importantly I learned something new from his take. I like the image. It puts me in a mind to say that if we could see excess wealth with the same perspective the Sublime has, we would be like those who could see their own lungs tainted by tobacco smoke. But by the same token, would they who have grown addicted to wealth, even if they could see it for the danger it is, give it up?

Inzamam Acquitted of Cheated, Docked for "Disrepute"

(from the BBC)

No surprises here. Inevitably, questions are now raised as to whether this will damage cricket. In my opinion it has not, and the sport is strong enough to rebound.

Was Inzy correct to do as he did? I believe so, personally, because he had no other appeal at the time. Really, a dramatic protest was his only option, in my opinion.

If anyone did bring the sport into disrepute, it was Hair.

The Violent Protests Continue

Violence continues across Asia in response to the Pope's Regensburg speech (get the story here.)


Reading the above is a pretty sad affair...
Reading the above is a pretty sad affair. And it reminds me of a quote from an article I linked to yesterday:

One columnist, Abdelwahab Al Affendi, ridiculed those who demanded a retraction of the Pope's original remarks.

Mr Al Effendi wrote saying that nothing short of the Pope's converting to Islam will ever assuage the anger of those people!

(From the BBC; emphasis mine.)

Sad as it is, though, it does remind me of something humorous Fr. Richard John Neuhaus quoted in an article over at FIRST THINGS: On the Square:

Somewhat over the top but nonetheless not without interest is the following open letter to the pope from offended Muslims. I assume it is fictional.

Dear Pope Benedict XVI:

We Muslims are not at all violent, not that you said we were, but who needs to read your speech when the local imam, who hasn’t read it either, can tell us what it says? Since peaceful efforts to convince you of our commitment to peace have failed, we hope that the mass riots, burnt effigies, cries of “Death to the Pope!” and a smattering of grenades in assorted churches will exorcise every ghost of the rumor that we are violent, and prove that Mohammed pitched a tent big enough to include interfaith camels. It is hoped that you will rescind your position, even if it wasn’t yours to begin with, lest our peacefulness escalate even further.

While on the subject of humour ... I found this response to an upset Muslim who "truly was a Muslim who valued peace and actually does condemn violence."

“Nothing I say can convince you I am right, and nothing you say can convince me you are right.

Clearly Muslims and Catholics are going to view the Pope's remarks differently. I think our Pope is the Vicar of Christ (the son of God) and speaks the truth. Also remember that the Pope was quoting the Byzantine Emperor, so if the quote has people offended, why don't you just go protest against the nation of Byzantium?

Why don't you guys go picket in front of the imperial palace in Constantinople? Why don't you send a petition to the current emperor? Why don't the heads of state of Muslim nations tell the Byzantine ambassadors in their countries how "insensitive" these remarks were. Heck you could even go protest in front of the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia, after all, the man whose words offended you so much was not Catholic but Eastern Orthodox.

The Byzantines are a reasonable people; they have preserved much of the wisdom of the Ancient World, Socrates, Virgil, etc. They have wonderful art and architecture. They are the very epitome of a civilized society. Please lobby your protests against them, I am sure Byzantium and the Muslim world can reach some sort of understanding, a way to co-exist, without further insult.”

I thank Fr. Neuhaus and Fidei Defensor for the laughs. But the "yucks" underscore a deeper point, and that is the rage expressed against the Pope is so ridiculous, what is left for us but to laugh?

Superb Article About the Crusades

I commend a wonderful article to you about the Crusades by Jimmy Akin, via Insight Scoop. It really is a masterly run down of the history, with a section placing it in context.

Enjoy.

Now for something completely different

Cricket News!

Before I go to bed, I thought I'd blog about something else that is important to me: cricket. Inzamam-ul-Haq heads back to London to the place where all the controversy started. He goes back to the Oval to defend himself against charges of ball tampering and bringing the game into disrepute. As Captain, he was deemed responsible even if one of the bowlers is actually alleged to have tampered with the ball. (Get the story here and here.)


My own opinions on this are pretty simple...
My own opinions on this are pretty simple. Darrell Hair handled the ball tampering allegations extremely poorly. While I agree he had a right as umpire to do as he did (i.e. exchange balls without first issuing a warning through the Pakistani captain), it was poor form not to consult with Inzamam-ul-Haq, and poor form not to at least issue a warning. Darrell Hair's conduct after the affair only deepens my antagonism towards him and his conduct over this. I well remember that he was the one who repeatedly no-balled Murali. It is little wonder then that India have requested Hair play no part in the upcoming series. It's little wonder.

I also find this interesting. There are times I wish it were Hair and not Inzamam on trial here ...

The Pope and the Islamic World

As you can readily imagine, I have continued to follow the story of how the Holy Father's words are being interpretted -- for good or ill -- by certain elements of the Islamic Community.


Yesterday, Pope Benedict met with ...
Yesterday, Pope Benedict met with representatives of the Islamic world: diplomats and some Italian Muslim groups. Amy Welborn has the text, and AmericanPapist has valuable commentary.

My own take tends to centre on how the world's press interprets these things. The press tends to take the moral high ground, almost always attempting to say the Pope is hypocritical when criticising modern Islamist violence. Typical of this is in this post by the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

Crusaders in 1099 captured Jerusalem and began wholesale attacks on its population, including Muslims and Jews, historians say. At the same time in other parts of the Muslim world, a golden age of science, medicine and learning was under way with its intellectual hub in Baghdad.

In the early 13th century, Crusaders sacked Constantinople, the ancient center of Greek-led Byzantium, in part to use the plunder to fund more forays into Muslim lands. The Byzantine Empire never fully recovered from the blow and Muslim forces took the city - now called Istanbul - in 1453 and it became the seat of the Ottoman Empire.

Religious scholars have noted that Ottoman policy did not demand conversion to Islam across its realm, which covered much of the Balkans at its peak. But some places, notably Albania and Bosnia, welcomed the faith. In Orthodox Christian Greece, an old saying is still widely used: Better the turban than the papal tiara.

It is the typical, one-sided "You Barbaric Catholics did some nasty things yourselves to those poor, innocent Muslims". Of course, many attrocities were committed on both sides. The sack of Jerusalem and Richard the Lionheart's massacre at Acre were met by Baybars' sacks and massacres at Tyre and Antioch. Moreover, the press tends to forget that Europe felt legitimately threatened (cf The Conquest of Spain which Fr Stephanos points out occured 300 years before the First Crusade), were invited to defend the Holy Land by an Eastern Orthodox Emperor, and went to secure the Holy Sepulchre, which had itself been destroyed by those poor, innocent Muslims. It was not -- strictly speaking -- a conquering enterprise, as is clear evident in the fact that they stopped after they secured the Holy Sepulchre and the rest of the Holy Land. The press tends to conveniently forget the immediate root causes of the conflict was a particularly cruel and nasty destruction of one of our holiest sites:

The turning point in western attitudes towards the east came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid caliph of Cairo, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem destroyed. His successor permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it under stringent circumstances, and pilgrimage was again permitted, but many stories began to be circulated in the West about the cruelty of Muslims toward Christian pilgrims; these stories then played an important role in the development of the crusades later in the century.

(from Wikipedia.)

The point of this is that the press tends to get it lop-sidedly wrong, so as to self-righteously mock us. However, they also tend to forget something else ... The Crusades and other things which the World likes to smear us with happened in the past. And Pope John Paul the Great apologised for those times in which we sinned during those events. Islamist violence is, however, happening today. The Holy Father has a right and a duty to criticise it, especially in light of the fact that we have apologised for when we have not carried out the Will of Christ in these matters.

In related news

The criticism of the disproportionate reaction among many quarters in the Islamic world is no longer (it seems) restricted solely to the blogosphere. An Indian columnist has a very insightful piece. He also has an interesting quote from Gandhi:

"Mussalmans have an ordeal to pass through. There can be no doubt that they are too free with the knife and the pistol. The sword is an emblem of Islam. But Islam was born in an environment where the sword was, and still remains, the supreme law. The message of Jesus has proved ineffective because the environment was unready to receive it. So with the message of the Prophet. The sword is yet too much in evidence among the Mussalmans. It must be sheathed if Islam is to be what it means - peace."

I find that interesting, because Gandhi is almost always cited as having nothing but effusive praise for Islam.

Moderte Islam is finally speaking out, too. Over in The Phillipines (via Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B again) and around the rest of the Muslim world. It's about time.

NPR Interviews the Aga Khan

It's been a while since I blogged about anything from NPR. This morning they interviewed the Aga Khan. And it is interesting. He says it is not a clash of civilisations, but a clash of ignorance. Pretty interesting stuff.

Defending the Pope Against Claims of Heresy

I commend a wonderful article to you that addresses the attack leveled against the Holy Father that he is a Modernist Heretic. It is entitled The Hunt for Heresy: Dr. Droleskey vs. Cardinal Ratzinger.

There is one line out of all of this that seems especially topical:

"...and when dealing with an academic theologian, such as Ratzinger is, context is everything."

Enjoy.

First Things First: My Thoughts on Regensburg

To mark the end of my hiatus (I hope), I have decided to talk a little about my own take on the fallout of the Regensburg speech. Fr Tucker, on of my favourite blogs (Dappled Things), has two interesting articles (here and here) whose main point is that the real message of this brilliant lecture has been lost. I commend them to you.

In fact, one of the most important lines from this ...
In fact, one of the most important lines from this speech, and indeed what might be a defining moment for this papacy is the following excerpt:

The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application... Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today.

(emphasis mine)

So let me explain. First, I found the speech fascinating. And I read it as soon as I read the initial BBC Online news item. Why? Because I always read what the Pope actually said rather than how it is reported. This is lesson I learned during the previous Pontificate of Pope John Paul the Great. Every time he would write an encyclical the most bizarre things would be reported in the British press. So, I stopped looking to the press to tell me what the Pontiff wrote, and instead I read it for myself. Admittedly, as a teenager, I was ill-equipped to decipher this genius's writing. In other words, I was just informed enough to work for the Times, the Guardian or the Telegraph.

In any case, pardon the digression ... I was captivated by his discussion of λόγος, and I too was struck by the implications of a God who could transcend his own logic. As an interesting aside, Drew at the Shrine of the Holy Whapping, has a superb analysis of the fundamental differences between the Catholic and Islamic understanding of the nature of God.

And this then brings me to the disproportionate rage that the loonies in the Islamic world has exhibited due to the Pope's use of Emperor Manuel's "evil and inhuman" characterisation. Incidentally, I have yet to hear someone comment on whether the Emperor was using good, old-fashioned Greek hyperbole here to hammer home his point. Khoury, alluded to it, in the interview you can read in Fr. Tucker's second article I linked to above.

So what can be done about the "rage," summed up neatly by Mark Shea? I have a novel solution. We must fight back with a weapon so powerful, no amount of suicide bombs can match its might. We must Love our Muslim brothers and sisters exponentially greater than their worst offenders hate us. Love is the ultimate weapon that defeated sin and death, and it is the weapon we must employ now to calm even the most ire-filled heart.

To that end, I have been saying full rosaries for the Pope, Conversions of Sinners, and the Calming of Passions amongst our Brothers and Sisters of the Qu'ran. Though I am but a simple minnow of little importance, I would like to make a request that the Sacrament of Love be offered wherever possible for these or other similar intentions. Because it is the ultimate act of Love, where our Saviour laid down his life for us, I think its power is more than sufficient to calm passions if even one such Eucharist is offered. Again, it is probably not my place, little minnow that I am, to make this request ... but if it can be made, I would that it were effected and soon.

Until the passions are calmed, and that genuine dialogue so needed takes place, I will continue to say my little rosaries ...

Happy Whitsun

I know I have been woefully remiss in keeping this blog up to date. The constraints of time being what they are, it is difficult to squeeze in everything one wants to do in a whole day. Still, I was inspired to write by today's second reading at Mass.


Paul's letter to the Galatians has ...
Paul's letter to the Galatians has a profound message for us.

live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh. For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want. (Galatians 5:16-17)

This directly relates Pentecost to the latest encyclical by the Holy Father. As a digression, I had so desired to write about that at the time he published it, but alas for time. Back to the quote. Pentecost is the day we celebrate the birth of the Church, because the promised Paraclete came to rest with the Apostles. In turn, the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, confers certain gifts upon whom he is bestowed. One of the great gifts the Church has received, is the great ability to witness to Love.

In the Encyclical, the Holy Father discusses the fact that the Church tries to lead all Men from eros to caritas. Put simply, the Church speaking for the Holy Ghost, calls us to leave the passions behind to ascend to the selfless love of the other. As the Pontiff rightly points out, this has the effect sometimes of making us seem as if we enjoy going into the bedroom blowing a whistle on people's activities. The reality is that we desire to show Men the way upward.

Now, where do we get the idea that the carnal desires of the flesh will do little to save Man? Where do we get the idea that we must selflessly love our brothers and sisters as we love ourselves? Principally we learn it from the Inspired Scripture, like the one I quoted above. In fact, Paul has an important lesson here for us. It is the prompting of the Holy Ghost within us also that calls us to leave the warring with carnality behind. But the Church's view also comes from its long experience and its common sense.

Consider that at its most basic level, eros is the using of another person for one's own pleasure. Carnal desire is, at its most basic level, selfish love. Caritas, therefore, is the goal to which we are called, because it lifts us from same level as the brutes to a higher, more noble level.

That is not to say that eros is behind every ill, but it is behind many. When we desires others' bodies for own momentary gratification, it suggests a general disregard for our fellow brothers and sisters. This then helps to explain how it is Man can be so cruel to other Men, and why we seem to value others so cheaply.

And that is what the Church so desires, as does the Holy Ghost who guides Her. In order for their to be true selfless charity, Man must leave behind the passions of the beasts and take on the selfless love of others.

So, on this Whitsun, I was mindful of this idea, because the clarion call of the Paraclete is little discussed in our sermons and homilies. Indeed, the Paraclete Himself seems more notable for His absence than His inclusion is those sermons and homilies.

Digression

And now for something completely off-topic. There was a terrible, horrible crime committed at Mass today. It was a crime against the English language. The English language was brutally assaulted during the Sequence. Here is the translation as it appeared in my Missal:

In our labor, rest most sweet;
Grateful coolness in the heat;
Solace in the midst of woe.

O most blessed Light divine,
Shine within these hearts of yours,
And our inmost being fill

Where you are not, we have naught,
Nothing good in deed or thought,
Nothing free from taint of ill.

As you can see the rhyme scheme is pretty obvious ... aab ccb dde etc. So, what is that abomination "yours" doing there? It should be thine! Thine, you fools! This smacks of those condescending idiots who think that to make God more accessible, he must be made stupid. "Those poor, simple folk in the pews can't understand 'thine'! Let's make it 'yours'!" Of course "we have naught" is perfectly intelligible but "thine" is not. Idiots! Leave it alone! The English language is perfectly lovely when used properly. Abuse it like this, and all you get is a conviction for aggravated assault. Dreadful.